No, they are NOT worse. The unemployment rate was FAR worse for FAR longer during the early 80's. What part of TEN STRAIGHT MONTHS ABOVE 10% are you failing to comprehend? Looking at a chart that shows how long it takes to recover is also good. It shows that the Reagan recovery was FAR more successful than that of Obama, despite the unemployment situation being worse during the recession Reagan faced. your chart says exactly what we have been saying... Obama has FAILED when it comes to job creation.
Respectfully, we disagree. You repeating the same statistics over and over and over again is not going to change our disagreement. I think your focus on those statistics is wrong and that you aren't looking at the broader picture of the recession.
But you DID state that the Fed was able to effectively combat inflation with the 80's recession, which is true. You then went on to comment that the Fed today isn't able to do the same because rates are at zero. You seemed to be blaming it on the Fed's inability while ignoring the FACT that it is NOT the Fed that needs to act this time. Also, I never suggested that monetary policy wasn't an important tool. It is quite simply NOT the tool we need for this particular job.
The FED's dual mandate is price stability and full employment. That mandate doesn't change. The FED always has that dual mandate. It isn't a "FACT" that it is NOT the fed that needs to act this time. That's just not true. The FED has a responsibility to act all the time in pursuit of its dual mandates. I imagine that if inflation was at double the FED target rate for 3+ years you wouldn't suggest that the FED didn't need to act. Why is it different for unemployment? And yes, monetary policy is exactly the tool for this particular job. The trouble is that the traditional tools are not available and the FED is unwilling to do anything that isn't within the realm of its traditional tools.
The reason it is pointless to bring up Dung is that inflation is NOT the problem this time. While both are recessions, they are not the same. Quantitative easing is simply a measure to push the problem into the future. It does little to solve the employment problems we are facing. This is the point you are not grasping. It is not the Fed that needs to take action.
I know inflation is not the problem this time. This recession is very different from the 1981 recession. My point, SF, is that the FED created the 1981 recession and it ended the 1981 recession through the traditional method of changing interest rates. The FED had available to it and used the traditional tools. With the current recession, rates were already low, went to zero and can't go any lower. The traditional tool is no longer available. Quantitative easing was a policy adopted because it can't go lower than 0, but it isn't terribly effective.
Give me a fucking break. Obama has had Trillion dollar+ deficits every year. The problem is NOT a lack of spending. period.
Spending is only one side of the deficit equation. And, given the peak to trough drop in GDP and the drop in aggregate demand associated with it, substantially increased spending was called for.
Um, how so?
Please... do enlighten us as to how vastly different those two are. Do you even know how they are calculated and what the difference is?
They are vastly different and if you want to get a sense of job losses you should look to employment population ratio since it's a fairly straightforward calculation of the proportion of the non-institutionalized population over the age of 16 that is employed. "Employed" is very broadly defined. It basically measures the percentage of people that have jobs. So if you want to get a sense of the job losses, measuring the percentage of people at time A versus time B is a good indicator.
Labor market participation rate, by contrast, is all persons over the age of 16 that aren't instituionalized that are employed
or unemployed. The "or unemployed" part is the important difference. "Unemployed" means actively looking and available for work. So the labor market participation rate includes not just people with jobs, but people who don't have jobs but want jobs and are actively looking for them. Whether people want and look for work varies greatly depending on a who host of factors. For these reasons, because it includes the unemployed, which is highly variable, it isn't a good metric for measuring job losses.
The two are different and the reasons why the unemployment rate isn't a good indicator of job losses is precisely the reason that labor-market participation is not a good indicator.
I already explained to you what is wrong with that metric.
No, you didn't. You explain what is wrong with labor market participation, and in so doing, you implicitly explained what is wrong with using the unemployment rate.
If you want a metric to measure job losses... look at the JOBS numbers. If you want a metric to be able to compare the two periods, you look at the UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. That is the best metric to compare the two. Which has already been stated.
Jobs numbers is a hard comparator because of population and demographic changes. The unemployment rate is inadequate for the reasons you described. If you want to look at job numbers, you the percentage of population employed, a superior metric.
Yes, you used the labor participation rates twin sister. Fucking idiot
Actually, no, I didn't. You did. You're shit-bagging labor participation rate while trumpeting unemployment,
which is a component of the labor participation rate. And the reasons you identified as problems with labor participation are problems with the unemployment rate, not with the employment side of the labor participation equation.
No, it is not more accurate. It includes anyone who worked at least ONE hour in the given week.
Right. It includes anyone who has a job. Call me crazy, but that seems like a good metric for measuring jobs.
And no moron, we were having a discussion about the severity of the two recessions you moron.
Yes, we are, sunshine.
